Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Ivy Bridge Processor Hits 7GHz Overclock Record

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the who-ordered-this-keg-of-nitrogen? dept.

Intel 144

MojoKid writes "Renowned Overclocker HiCookie used a Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H motherboard to achieve a fully validated 7.03GHz clock speed on an Intel Core i7 3770K Ivy Bridge processor. As it stands, that's the highest clockspeed for an Ivy Bridge CPU, and it required a steady dose of liquid nitrogen to get there. HiCookie also broke a record for the highest memory speed on an Ivy Bridge platform, pushing his G.Skill Trident X DDR3-2800 memory kit populated in four DIMM slots to 3,280MHz. Not for the faint of heart, the record breaking CPU overclock required that HiCookie pump 1.956V to the processor, according to his CPU-Z screenshot. The CPU multiplier was set at x63."

cancel ×

144 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cool (0)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172287)

So Ivy Bridge can do something after all! :D

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172347)

ooh burrn on ivy bridge!

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172403)

It still doesn't do anything. It just does nothing that much quicker.

Re:Cool (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175327)

You mean other than kicking the crap out of AMD?

One core, two threads? (5, Interesting)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172401)

Can someone explain why it's reporting one core, two threads?

Is this:
1. Set to one core to get a better heat profile?
2. Only using one core for the test?
3. Using all cores for the test but only reporting one core's results?

Because if it's 1 or 2 I think I see some problems with this benchmark.

Re:One core, two threads? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172455)

Generally they disable all cores but one to achieve these clock speeds.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172529)

So... what's the advantage to having one core running at 7GHz versus four at standard clock speeds, assuming that whatever you're running takes full advantage of all the threads?

Re:One core, two threads? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172587)

I don't think you really understand the purpose of this. He's not "running" anything, so it doesn't matter how many threads. An overclock like this is only done to say that it can be done and that you did it, it's not practical in any way shape or form. You would never try to run an actual application on this, odds are you couldn't maintain system stability for more than a few minutes, and even if you did the cooling and power requirements are well beyond reasonable.

Re:One core, two threads? (4, Informative)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172637)

This is not for practical use, it's just to one-up the last guy.

Re:One core, two threads? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173229)

Or maybe high-frequency trading

Re:One core, two threads? (3, Informative)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173303)

No, these with these types of overclocks you can normally only run the system long enough to run CPU-Z and get a screenshot. The majority of windows services are not running, only one CPU core is running, and you are cooling it with liquid nitrogen that tends to boil away rather quickly.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175347)

Lol, if you are running anything financial related on a machine overclocked, you're an idiot, let alone oc'd to 7ghz.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176137)

HFT houses run overclocked CPUs, certainly. They hire kernel engineers to shave off every nanosecond, they have infiniband vendors give them custom firmware and access to parameters nobody else has, they get the CPUs before anybody else does, and they certainly overclock them.

They measure microseconds in $millions/hour.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172651)

When you absolutely, positively have to have your calculation done on time...invest in lots of liquid cooling to do something for no purpose!

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173141)

... do it on a dedicated server farm. Cheaper and more reliable.

Yes, I got the joke.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173831)

*your non-paralellalizalable calculations

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174475)

Oh come on now, he is not doing any calculations. He's not even going to be able to play Warcraft faster than the guy living in the basement next door!

Useless epeen waving..

Re:One core, two threads? (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172737)

So... what's the advantage to having one core running at 7GHz versus four at standard clock speeds, assuming that whatever you're running takes full advantage of all the threads?

Probably this tiny little inner satisfaction of having one's feeling of insufficient manliness adequately compensated by non-anatomical means.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172905)

That's what sports cars are for.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173653)

And hot women

Re:One core, two threads? (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173915)

Yes, keep telling yourself you can't get hot women because you are too confident and have a huge cock.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40176053)

Maybe you do things to compensate for lack of dick, but don't push your own inadequacies upon others.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173769)

It's the same performance as a 1.6Ghz quadcore with just air cooling, what you're seeing is how fast one core can go, given that all 4 running would quadruple the thermal requirements.

Generally the purpose of doing this is for shits and giggles, you would not be able to actually use the computer configured that way since the cooling solution would run out pretty quickly. The most you can do for a functional system is to immerse in mineral oil, with SSD drives and not submerge the PSU.This is generally a non-viable solution for most people. Even water cooling is non-viable for most people. This is why you see heatpipes in aftermarket coolers, this is about as complicated as you can get in a system that is used by someone competent. Everyone else prefers quiet over speed/complexity.

Re:One core, two threads? (5, Insightful)

LtGordon (1421725) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174303)

It's the same performance as a 1.6Ghz quadcore with just air cooling

Except that it's not. For some theoretical computations that could be made perfectly parallel, this might be nearly true. However, in most cases (presently), the limiting factor in computation speed is the clock speed of an individual core.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175821)

The main culprit there is Flash and a normal clocked single core is more than adequate for that.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174041)

So... what's the advantage to having one core running at 7GHz versus four at standard clock speeds, assuming that whatever you're running takes full advantage of all the threads?

To play Quake at ~9x its rated speed [totl.net] , of course.

Why else would you want to do it?

Re:One core, two threads? (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175341)

Nothing. but it does prove that with adequate cooling you can get to 7ghz on current generation silicon.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173031)

Thank you for confirming my suspicion. Obviously I have more interest in using rather than record breaking so I'd have liked to also see what it can do on all four cores under liquid cooling.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172457)

Look at any record setting benchmark, Intel or AMD. Cores are disabled on purpose for the OC to be achievable.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172485)

Then it is not really an i7, might as well over clock an i3.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172533)

.../facepalm

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172735)

You know what I meant. Just as you would not call an i7 binned part that was crippled to be sold as an i3 this should not be called one either.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172917)

The biggest feature of the i7 that the Core 2 line didn't have is the ability to clock one core to crazy-fast speeds when the rest are disabled.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173499)

It's kind of stretch to call that "the biggest feature" when it only appeals to about 0.0001% of their customer base. I would say the onboard memory controller, improved IO and huge cache increase were probably a bit more relevant to the vast majority of consumers.

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172829)

Actually, and i3 has 2 cores with 4 threads.
Only the very lowest end celerons and atoms have a single active core.

Re:One core, two threads? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174499)

Actually, and i3 has 2 cores with 4 threads.

Actually, these days even an Atom [intel.com] has 2 cores, 4 threads, and 64 bit code capability now. And all in 10 watts. Blew my mind.

amd did better with 2 cores on a bulldozer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172919)

AMD did better with 2 cores, now I would like to see a side by side comparison of actual tasks.

link [xbitlabs.com]

Re:One core, two threads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173365)

No. It's Two Threads One Core.

Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172411)

The results are pretty impressive, but if you look at the screen capture in the article, only 1 core was enabled.

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (5, Funny)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172467)

This is essentially the only way to run this experiment, if you run all the cores at this speed, fusion is initiated, a black hole forms and time runs backwards!

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172669)

Woah! So if time runs backwards, but you still measure it as going forward, does the cpu end up running at infinite hertz?

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (4, Funny)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173057)

Woah! So if time runs backwards, but you still measure it as going forward, does the cpu end up running at infinite hertz?

You made my brain hertz.

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173939)

It would run infinitely fast at 0 hertz

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174141)

This is essentially the only way to run this experiment, if you run all the cores at this speed, fusion is initiated [...]

So if you overclock all of the Intel's cores at once it turns into an AMD?

Re:Only 1 core, 2 threads, clocked at 7.03 GHz (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174205)

The results are pretty impressive

I honestly don't understand why. These ridiculous liquid nitrogen overclocks have absolutely no real world implications whatsoever. They completely trash the hardware, and for what? A big number? What the hell good is that?

It's a shame, because the people that should be getting the hype and recognition are the ones that are overclocking their systems while still having a modicum of stability with real-world applications and reasonable up-time, because at least that's useful to enthusiasts and pushes a real envelope as opposed to a bullshit fake one that only a very, very select few can duplicate and even fewer would even bother.

Want to impress me? Crank out stable 5+ GHz on air cooling across all the cores in an always-on machine. Playing games with liquid Nitrogen is not impressive at all. These guys are the ricers of the computer world.

Cookie Crunch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172427)

That's a hell of a cookie crunch

Re:Cookie Crunch (1)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173169)

That's a hell of a cookie crunch

Oh that was pretty lame. Try harder, dont be lazy. Effort spent is wittiness gained.

Pumping voltage. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172477)

>required that HiCookie pump 1.956V to the processor
>costanza.jpg

Is that a joke? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172547)

Couldn't POWER CPUs do >5 GHz as their normal speed already a loong time ago? (Apart from being a much better architecture to begin with.)
And didn't many people do 7GHz overclockings, using liquid nitrogen, over five years ago?
How meaningless is a overclocking speed? It's like saying: Your Smart will go 400km/h... if only we run it as ten bazillion RPM. It's still a Smart!! And you will never get this in real life!
This is damn close to fraud, to spread such bullshit so people get a false feeling of it being so fast.

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172877)

The point is that the CPU and the motherboard are all manufactured in such a way that the processor can work at a clock cycle so damn fast. That is precision. Not everything is about work/time. To your analogy, it's more like saying "We can have the engine do ten bazillion RPM! That's a quality engine! However, if you try to drive at that RPM, any flaw in the system can cause a huge amount of damage, so don't expect to drive it at that speed."

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172879)

How meaningless is a overclocking speed? It's like saying: Your Smart will go 400km/h... if only we run it as ten bazillion RPM. It's still a Smart!! And you will never get this in real life!
This is damn close to fraud, to spread such bullshit so people get a false feeling of it being so fast.

So please, tell me your thoughts in regards to auto-racing.

Re:Is that a joke? (3, Insightful)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173143)

They have an irrational fear of right turns?

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173161)

Odd, I was going to type NASCAR, but I ended up typing auto-racing.

How did you respond to my first draft?

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173819)

You said "auto" == you are a Yank == your "auto racers" go: while(!assploded) { go(left); go(straight); }

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173865)

I tend to watch F-1 and the Rolex series. The only interesting part of watching NASCAR are the crashes.

Re:Is that a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40174091)

As a beer drinker, I find your statement offensive.

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174197)

> you are a Yank
That makes you a Wank.

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174327)

The part of the country that is into NASCAR would not appreciate being called a Yankee... entirely different connotation down there - something about the invention of "total war" occurring on their land.

NASCAR started with liquor running during Prohibition, so speed was more important than handling. Given that, I can kind of excuse the initial use of an oval track. But once the speeds got too high, they started restricting the cars and so the oval track was sort of an anachronism... very hard for me to get into oval track racing. That said, I'm sure it is fun as hell to drive a car around an oval track (I've only done an autocross course, which is terrifying in a good way).

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175121)

I lost interest in Nascar when they no longer represented real cars. I'd like to see them go to the showroom, pick out a car and race the thing. Some safety upgrades maybe but it must be "stock" at least the fucking shell should be anyway.

Re:Is that a joke? (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174333)

NASCAR is fucking retarded. God, what I would give for some real Rally racing here in the States. It's so much more interesting than watching cars do hundreds of laps around a big fucking oval.

As with realistic overclocking, Rally racing has some relevance to the real world. They're driving on real roads, in varying weather conditions, unlike the stupid NASCAR bullshit.

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175135)

Maybe we could get the Canonball run going again?

Re:Is that a joke? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175281)

I agree, that would also be pretty damn cool. I watched the show Bullrun [wikipedia.org] when it was on the Speed Channel a few years ago, but it was annoying with all the added drama nonsense that reality TV does these days, and the challenges were pretty retarded, too.

Just a bunch of teams, drive whatever you want, Point A to Point B. Good stuff.

Was it actually doing anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172553)

While this is an achievement, what bothers me about these records is that most of the time, they aren't really doing anything at that speed.

Re:Was it actually doing anything? (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172727)

Not only do they not do anything at these speeds, they cannot do anything at these speeds except run CPU-Z long enough to get a screen-shot.

Contests to see who can run Superpi the fastest are more interesting.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=185163 [guru3d.com]

Re:Was it actually doing anything? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172927)

Then how do they call it stable?
To me it seems like you would want to test it doing some sort of calculation you can check later.

Re:Was it actually doing anything? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173037)

With the Superpi contests they do, your checksum has to be validated for your score to count.

These max gigahertz records such as tfa, although interesting, are pretty useless. I do have to give them credit for what they do though, it ain't easy.

Does this mean.... (0)

OldGunner (2576825) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172605)

...the system clock ran 63 times faster than normal? If so, does an hour-long test take slightly less than a minute?

Re:Does this mean.... (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172793)

No, it means the CPU clock was 63x the bus speed, which means that the bus speed was a dog-slow 111 MHz. The CPU would not be particularly useful running at this speed because of the slow bus speed.

Re:Does this mean.... (2)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173397)

Standard base clock for Sandy/Ivy Bridge is 100MHz...

Re:Does this mean.... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175613)

Ah. So Intel is somewhat abusing the traditional meaning of a bus multiplier, and we don't actually know anything about the memory bus speed. *sigh*

However, we do know that they're running that base clock more than 10% faster than normal, which probably means that either their RAM is faster than the spec requires or they are running at a slower bus speed than the maximum. No idea which.

Re:Does this mean.... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172819)

The multiplier on my processor (2 year old i5) was set around 20x by default. I suspect the i7 starts out higher. I think this is less than twice as fast as the non-overclocked version.

Re:Does this mean.... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172843)

Oh, and the CPU multiplier [wikipedia.org] is just how much faster the CPU is than the system bus. It's been a loooong time since any CPU's have run at 1x.

Pfft. (0)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172611)

That's nothing. My signal generator will do 15Ghz easy... maybe even 20.

Re:Pfft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172645)

Can it do math?

Re:Pfft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172693)

Yep. Plug whatever you want to multiply into the MOD port, and you get sum and difference!

Re:Pfft. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172747)

Yeah, but the output is always 10

From the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172679)

"These new world records highlight our belief that top notch quality and design deliver truly world-class, record breaking performance," commented Tim Handley, Deputy Director of Motherboard Marketing at Gigabyte.

Moments later, Deputy Director of Motherboard Engineering at Gigabyte commented, "Yeah, um...It of course could be overclocked but we don't recommend it. Essentially, you are only running one core at this new speed and the amount of time and energy required to do this doesn't make any sense. It's quite useless actually."

7 GHz boot (5, Funny)

value (2182292) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172717)

7 GHz processor speed and it still takes 10 seconds to load Windows. . .

Re:7 GHz boot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173369)

It seemed like the limiting factor was the speed of the logo animation

Re:7 GHz boot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173413)

I wonder how many vacuum flasks of liquid nitrogen it would take to play a game of COD?

Re:7 GHz boot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40174015)

My i2500k clocked at 4.6 GHz boots windows 7 in 4.5 seconds. You do need to configure "No GUI boot" with msconfig though, and be using an SSD.

OMG your so funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40174043)

seriously you have to be the funniest motherfucker on the planet. 10 seconds is still a pretty good boot time. Ubuntu takes about as long as windows 7 for me, and windows 7 does not default to 640x480 resolution when my tv is connected as a second monitor like linux does.

Where is his "so funny"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40174103)

Just wondering...

computing power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172749)

and he used all this computing power to ... let me guess - send a tweet upstairs to his mother telling her what he wanted for dinner.

Queston: NOw that Steve Jobs is dead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172751)

Does anyone care, anymore? Just wandering.

Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (1, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172871)

Not too impressive. My 10-year-old Pentium 4 is almost as fast (3.2 GHz).

Re:Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172937)

Except your not even close to as fast.....

Re:Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (2)

Henriok (6762) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172939)

Yeah because Hz == Hz? Hmm.. welcome to the MHz Myth. You probably haven't heard of it, but you should. It's like this: Hz a measure of steps per time, like counting number of steps mer minute taken by someone who runs. Imagine a short person and a tall person that take an equal number of steps. Who runs the farthest? The tall man or the short man? Pentium 4 or a Ivy Bridge Core i7? It's not your 10 year old Pentium4.. In case you cot lost in the lesson somewhere.

Re:Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173125)

Can I have a cot too? I really could use a late afternoon nap...

Re:Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173131)

Yes.
I was being tongue-in-cheek.
I know my P4 isn't as fast..... I know that every time I try to play an HD-quality movie, and it runs at quarter speed. The CPU is fast in cycles but slow in calculations.

Re:Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173181)

Hmm.. welcome to the MHz Myth.

Welcome to the whoosh.

Re:Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40175379)

In the future, just use the hammer/nail analogy. Much easier to understand than that train-wreck you ventured in to.

I can hammer a nail into a block of wood using many light swings or one big crushing blow.

Clockspeed is how many times you hit the nail. Performance per clock is how hard you hit the nail.

You may "vibrate" the hammer against the nail, which technically is hitting the nail over 10 times a second. Not much work gets done though as the nail hardly moves.

This record is essentially vibrating the hammer against the nail. You've reduced the amount of work so much that almost nothing gets done so that you can achieve these speeds.

And your 10 year old P4 can do 256-bit vector math (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173715)

Oh wait, no it can't. It also isn't quad core, and does about 20% of the work per clock.

There are limits to GHz scaling. It isn't a situation of "Oh just make it faster," particularly if you want to hit a power budget. What has happened is that CPUs have gotten much more parallel, much more efficient per clock, and have gotten much better at vector math. My Sandy Bridge processor pulls like 80 Gflops on Linpack using AVX. Try that on a P4, let me know how it goes.

CPU companies aren't interested in optimizing for high GHz at the expense of thermal and computational efficiency. They want CPUs that do more, and do it on a power budget.

Re:And your 10 year old P4 can do 256-bit vector m (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173997)

Things for you to do:
1) Go outside
2) walk to the nearest store
3) by a humor detector.

Re:Standard speed == 3.5 GHz (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173965)

Half = almost now.

Good to know.

AMD hit their record with all cores enabled (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173041)

AMD hit their record with all cores enabled.... intel requires one core disabled or else you will brick the CPU regardless if it's LN2 cooling.

Also, Gigabyte gave them this "special" motherboard.

Pointless (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40174563)

I remember when modding was interesting and expensive.
I now find it pointless. I just want my computer to work, I don't care how fast it is anymore. Sorry :(

My middling, mostly working UD5H. (2)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175531)

I own the mentioned UD5H motherboard used for the record memory speed; I bought it to replace a very old P5B Deluxe. I am in no way jealous or unappreciative of HiCookie's feat, and the board definitely looks like something that can handle such a thing, but my experience with the board has been middling.

I haven't had the freezes that people have mentioned on its Newegg page [newegg.com] (thank the gods!) and things generally work, but Windows 7 64-bit simply refuses to hybrid sleep or hibernate, and after a non-hybrid standby to RAM, things subtly fuck up (no audio, and other devices I forget at the moment mess up), which means I have to fully reboot (really fun when waiting for big programs like Catalyst) or leave the rig on at FULL POWAH through the night or whatever. Arch Linux was working well at first (RAM standby and even disk hibernate if properly configured and I choose to boot from the Linux drive after the suspend), but updates seem to have made it less compatible with my audio (audio out works except through the standard green line-out...odd) and TV tuner (not detected), for whatever reason. (I left a few more details on a review on the Newegg page, minus the less-compatible part.) The P5B had no such problems: its audio had lots of RF interference through headphones (the UD5H has beautifully clear onboard audio when it works) but it suspended, automatically resumed from the suspended drive, and otherwise worked nicely.

For me, a "middling" board is worse than a "horrible" one, because at least a horrible would be bad enough for me to undo all the cable connections and screw placements and attachments and all that to trade for something better (a very old backup PC I had started getting POST errors as I built the new one so combined with other factors it made referring to the internet kinda impossible...that was fun). With a middling one I simply tolerate the few problems because it mostly works. *shrugs*

Sorry if that came off as a dumb ramble; just my experience with it.

Heat dissipation (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176163)

I don't have any liquid nitrogen, but I really, really like french toast. On a MacBook Air with an Ivy Ridge CPU, how many slices would I need to cook simultaneously to match the effects of using LN2?

Re:Heat dissipation (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176197)

For maintaining proper cooling, I'd only recommend thawing pre-frozen french toast on your macbook. Do the actual frying on an Itanium2 or something.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?